53 replies to this topic

[Unbound Inferno]

Rufus the Brute, on 19 July 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

Mech Poll Online...

If it hurts your feeling I could just take the poll down. Its not like its an accurate assessment anyway, just of those that are active at the moment.

[hammerreborn]

Joseph Mallan, on 19 July 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:

Probably doesn't, but I am getting tired of hearing how 60 point Alphas are ruining the game, when I have been seeing 50+ Alphas for 20+ years. Convergence is the real Boogieman, As proven in MWO back when I had a 90+ Alphas using LRMs and Medium lasers! The complain was that to many missiles were raining not '2x LRM20 and 4x Mediums' were OP.

The point is, you talked about how you can do 75 damage in TT, a 10s turn.

With the 30 cap huge dissipation suggestion you can fire an ERPPC (even at 15 heat) every second (at a 4s dissipation rate compared to 10) for an eternity as long as you have 15 dissipation a second, or 60 every 4.

You would have 22*2.5 (assuming "4 second" turns) = 55 just from the engine, so it's entirely easy to do. Bump it up to 5s for a dissipation turn and you're at 22*2 =44 and you need 1.4*1.1*2 = 3.... 60 - 44 = 16/3 = 6 DHS extra to do it.

And with that, you would do 100 damage a "TT turn" which is more than you were bragging about >.>

But all of the damage would be staggered, needs no complicated heat scales, no complicated convergence. Just full on constant rain of fire that is easy to use and understand, and requires no rewriting of the HUD (as the current heat bar just has its 100% changed to 30) and should be rather simple changes to the code (eliminating all benefit to heat cap from heat sinks and doubling the dissipation rate).

Edited by hammerreborn, 19 July 2013 - 12:58 PM.

[Orzorn]

hammerreborn, on 19 July 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

Or you could slash the heat cap to 30, and make them chain fire.

That is honestly my preferred solution.

[Vox Scorpus]

We cannot compare the heat systems between this game and Classic Battletech. Don't get me wrong, I still play the TT game but the systems are different. Most stock mechs in TT have 10 HS, 15 or maybe 20 for the H and A classes. This was enough to fire 1/2 to 3/4 of your weapons every turn with no heat generated at the end of the turn. Only from firing more than this did you have to keep track of the heat scale and with the stacks of modifiers (LOS, movement, terrain, distance, etc) you wouldn't fire some weps anyway. It was pretty easy to create a build where the HS matched the weapon heat and therefore never see a heat issue. In fact it made sense to have lots of HS so a critical hit wouldn't take out a weapon. Then you would have to watch the heat scale. Now how does that translate to MWO? Pretty close except for the dissipation rate of the heat generated. either that or the weapons fire to fast (more cooldown is needed). However now you're talking a longer game and that's not what we are looking for. Previous posts have brought up some good points on how to fix this. I think a "fix", whatever it is, is not going to balance everything out perfectly. The game started as TT and the mechanics of MWO are using some TT rules that will not translate to video game properly. I have no suggestions for a fix as many points were already covered. I hope the devs do take a look at this (already are with the weapon heat scaling). I think the game as it is works well (unless I get taken out with LRM's !!!) enough as it is. Remember though it is still in beta - lots of patching to come.

[Unbound Inferno]

hammerreborn, on 19 July 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

The point is, you talked about how you can do 75 damage in TT, a 10s turn.

With the 30 cap huge dissipation suggestion you can fire an ERPPC (even at 15 heat) every second (at a 4s dissipation rate compared to 10) for an eternity as long as you have 15 dissipation a second, or 60 every 4.

You would have 22*2.5 (assuming "4 second" turns) = 55 just from the engine, so it's entirely easy to do. Bump it up to 5s for a dissipation turn and you're at 22*2 =44 and you need 1.4*1.1*2 = 3.... 60 - 44 = 16/3 = 6 DHS extra to do it.

And with that, you would do 100 damage a "TT turn" which is more than you were bragging about >.>

But all of the damage would be staggered, needs no complicated heat scales, no complicated convergence. Just full on constant rain of fire that is easy to use and understand, and requires no rewriting of the HUD (as the current heat bar just has its 100% changed to 30) and should be rather simple changes to the code (eliminating all benefit to heat cap from heat sinks and doubling the dissipation rate).

That is a good point. Really makes me think 30 cap would be best. If abit annoying, tis probably best.

[Joseph Mallan]

hammerreborn, on 19 July 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:

Take the 4 PPC stalker with 16 DHS (IIRC but whatever). With cool run 10 in engine (2.2 = 22 heat dissipated in 10s), 6 outside (8.4 heat dissipated in 10s). Total dissipation becomes 30.4 heat every 10s. To convert to every 4s, you get 76 heat dissipated in 4s, or 19 heat a second.

You lost me here. If you are changing from 10 seconds to 5... You would be dissipating 30.4 heat in 4 seconds that is dropping 7.6 (8 rounding up) per second not 19...

[hammerreborn]

Joseph Mallan, on 19 July 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

You lost me here. If you are changing from 10 seconds to 5... You would be dissipating 30.4 heat in 4 seconds that is dropping 7.6 (8 rounding up) per second not 19...

Those numbers were for changing to 4s, not 5.

If you change to 5 16 DHS comes out to 20*1.1(cool run)*2 + 6*1.4*1.1*2 = 44 + 18.48 =62.48 every 5 seconds

62.48/5 = 12.5 a second.


Edit: for easier calculation 44/5 =9 heat a second from engine as long as you have 250+

And 18.46/6 = 3 for each external heat sink

So to make firing 4 erppcs at 15 heat every second while being heat neutral you need 17 dhs

Though frankly id get rid of cool run and heat containment (I would rather they did that irregardless) which would drop the dissipations to 8.1 and 2.7, respectively, making our 4 15 heat erppcs require

60-32.4 = 27.6 to come from externals needing 10-11 DHS to compensate (probably 12 due to map heat variances)

Edited by hammerreborn, 19 July 2013 - 02:08 PM.

[Unbound Inferno]

Still means working with a 30 heat base cap that the alphastrike from the 4 PPC can't happen - not without nearly killing the mech from heat damage - but could sustain that damage.

Which is exactly what I'd prefer to see.

[Joseph Mallan]

hammerreborn, on 19 July 2013 - 01:38 PM, said:

Those numbers were for changing to 4s, not 5.

If you change to 5 16 DHS comes out to 20*1.1(cool run)*2 + 6*1.4*1.1*2 = 44 + 18.48 =62.48 every 5 seconds

62.48/5 = 12.5 a second.


Edit: for easier calculation 44/5 =9 heat a second from engine as long as you have 250+

And 18.46/6 = 3 for each external heat sink

So to make firing 4 erppcs at 15 heat every second while being heat neutral you need 17 dhs

Though frankly id get rid of cool run and heat containment (I would rather they did that irregardless) which would drop the dissipations to 8.1 and 2.7, respectively, making our 4 15 heat erppcs require

60-32.4 = 27.6 to come from externals needing 10-11 DHS to compensate (probably 12 due to map heat variances)

Yeah... I missed one of the 5s (but not the one for my calculations) My numbers were using TT Heatsinks figures also cause I personally think the MWO nerf is idiotic. I did however forget the cool run buff!

[hammerreborn]

Joseph Mallan, on 19 July 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Yeah... I missed one of the 5s (but not the one for my calculations) My numbers were using TT Heatsinks figures also cause I personally think the MWO nerf is idiotic. I did however forget the cool run buff!

Well you could possibly up dissipation to 2 everywhere with a cap limit. Would make the math far easier (2*2 = 4 dissipation every 5 seconds or .8 a second, or 8 every 10 doubles (2 mediums a second from engine sinks!)


Not to mention all these changes make TT fans happy along with all the other obvious benefits

Edited by hammerreborn, 19 July 2013 - 02:49 PM.

[hammerreborn]

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2575164 since this has diverged from OPs original intent

Edited by hammerreborn, 19 July 2013 - 03:44 PM.

[Unbound Inferno]

Edited the main post to include an idea that came up on having DHS behave slightly differently than SHS to balance out the competition and not leave it so drastically different.

Unbound Inferno, on 19 July 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:

This can be done mainly by identifying the Heat Scale having two levels, the Heat Sink Capacity, then the 30 Overheat Threshold.

Fixing the heat sink system and dissipation helps a ton too.
One Heat Sink gives 1 capacity and 1 dissipation over the established turn time.
Double Heat Sinks give 2 capacity and 2 dissipation over that established time.

EDITED: Alternatively in order not to overpower DHS, but keep its dissipation rate the amount it affects the threshold could be reduced. In a weird way, keeping that 1.4 threshold on DHS, or lowering it to remain even with SHS evens out the playing field by having builds still suffer similar penalties even though DHS can handle it better. Or even go the extreme and say the DHS has only 0.5 threshold but double dissipation as a part of its cost.

If you go over your capacity, you begin to overheat with increasing penalties.

Oh, and removed the poll since only 14 people voted - kind of a poor judge that way.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 20 July 2013 - 10:12 PM.

[Antagonist]

The way you wrote this, your system doesn't discriminate between spike heat that will have been dissipated by the time the weapon has finished cycling and excess heat buildup.

Notwithstanding the fact that almost all weapons produce excess heat right now unless you mount an obscene amount of heat sinks.

[MaddMaxx]

Unbound Inferno, on 19 July 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:

I wouldn't mind. I imagine most everyone else would.

At most you can fire 3 PPC and shut down. Or 2 ERPPC and shut down.

Only Dual AC-20 or Dual Gauss could fire frequently and the game shifts to favor those.

So in the end the game is different but not changed for the better? Why do all the work required to make the changes, simply to trade the current PPC/Gauss Meta for a Gauss/AC20 Meta?

I was under the distinct impression that everyone thought PGI's mistake was not looking long term. Hmmm, seems to be a re-occuring theme.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 25 July 2013 - 10:18 AM.